Whether you've had some form of head trauma that has caused you to like Barack Obama or like all good hearted people, you can't stand him, his performance has objectively been terrible. Of course, we can debate WHY his performance has been so bad. His supporters would probably blame Bush, Republicans in Congress, ATM machines, fairy dust shortages and people forgetting to click their heels together three times before saying, "There's no place like home." On the other hand, people who haven't been drinking Barney Frankosaurus brand Kool-Aid might note that if Obama is going to blame Republicans for everything that happens while he's President, we might as well just replace him with a Republican. Whatever the case may be, here are five devastating numbers that show how poorly America has fared under Barack Obama's watch.

1) 3 years and 2 months:"The National Debt has now increased more during President Obama's three years and two months in office than it did during 8 years of the George W. Bush presidency.

The Debt rose $4.899 trillion during the two terms of the Bush presidency. It has now gone up $4.939 trillion since President Obama took office."

Keep in mind that in 2008, when Obama was in full "hope, change, and bullflop" mode, he actually called Bush "unpatriotic" for adding so much to the debt which is kind of like being called a traitor by Benedict Arnold.

2) $9.5 trillion: At a certain point, it does get a little tedious to keep hammering home how much debt we're piling up, but it's such an urgent problem that produces so little reaction, that it's nearly impossible to do otherwise. It's almost like being chained to people in a house that's burning down, but they're too busy camping out on the couch eating chips and watching American Idol to bother to save themselves.

This country has already lost its AAA rating, we're 15 trillion dollars in debt, we have 100 trillion dollars in unfunded Social Security and Medicare liabilities, and barring a major course correction, we're going to default on our debts and start into a downward spiral that this nation will not recover from in the lifetime of anyone reading this column. So what is the Obama Administration doing to tackle an issue so serious that it makes every other problem we have pale in significance?

Re: Five Devastating Numbers That Show Obama's Incompetenc

Absolutely stunning video! Please.. take the time.. it's only 4 minutes! Absolutely incredible! This is the only video anyone ever needs to watch! IfIWantedAmericatoFail

The Congressional Budget Office on Friday released its analysis of President Obama’s 2012 budget proposal and found it does less to rein in deficits and the debt than the administration had estimated. CBO estimates Obama's plan would produce 10 years of deficits totaling $9.5 trillion. By 2021, it would increase the debt held by the public to 87 percent of gross domestic product.

This is a "sit in the burning house until the roof falls in and we all die" budget. If we add another $9.5 trillion to the debt over the next 10 years, it will mean that generations of Americans will have to grow up in dire poverty, wear sack cloth, and have to eat their dogs to make it through the winter. On the upside, if American children do have to eat Fido, it may mean they'll grow up to be President one day.

﻿

﻿3) 1091 days: We're now up to 1,091 days without a budget despite the fact that it's the most basic function of Congress and it's required by law. There's a simple reason for this: Democrats don't want to offend the general public by increasing spending or their base by cutting spending; so they've decided to do nothing. This is kind of like a police department full of officers who've decided that arresting people is too much of a hassle; so they're going to sit in the station, eat doughnuts, drink coffee, and play Angry Birds all day. Worse yet, when Republicans like Paul Ryan have presented responsible budgets that don't go far enough, but are at least valiant attempts to take the country in the right direction, they've been criticized by Barack Obama and the Democratic Party. In other words, not only are the Democrats not going to do their jobs, they don't want Paul Ryan trying to do their jobs and to top it all off -- they then complain that the Republicans are blocking THEM. What a perverse political world it is that we live in when the Democrats have decided that their best chance of keeping their jobs is to refuse to do their jobs and then blame the other side for their adamant refusal to remove their own thumbs from their behinds.

Re: Five Devastating Numbers That Show Obama's Incompetenc

4) $2,170: One of the great ironies of this election is the still rabid support that black Americans have for Barack Obama. This is kind of like Columbine High School throwing a "We Sure Do Miss You" Memorial Rally for Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold.

When Mr. Obama was inaugurated black unemployment was 12.6%. 36 months later, it is at a depression era level 15.8%.

* Black teenage unemployment is a jaw dropping 42.3 percent.

* In October 2010, blacks accounted for 22.6 percent of the then 40.5 million Americans who received food stamp benefits each month. That figure was projected to rise in 2011. Mark Rank of Washington University suggests a whopping 90 percent of black children may eventually live in households that need food stamps.

* In 2007, before Obama took office, white households had a median net worth of $134,280, compared with $13,450 for black households. By the end of 2009, the median net worth for white households plummeted 24% to $97,860. But for black households, it dropped 83% to $2,170. The Chicago Sun-Times called it, “The Disappearing Black Middle Class.”

If a Republican President did the sort of damage to black Americans that Barack Obama has, it would be called a hate crime.

When the recession supposedly officially ended in June, 2009, the labor force participation rate was still 65.7%.

In the latest, much celebrated unemployment report, the labor force participation rate had plummeted to 63.7%, the most rapid decline in U.S. history. That means that under President Obama nearly 5 million Americans have fled the workforce in hopeless despair.

The trick is that when those 5 million are not counted as in the work force, they are not counted as unemployed either. They may desperately need and want jobs. They may be in poverty, as many undoubtedly are, with America suffering today more people in poverty than in the entire half century the Census Bureau has been counting poverty.

In other words, there are 5 million Americans who not only lost their jobs, but who became so discouraged trying to find a job that they just gave up. That's definitely a "change," but the only "hope" at this point is that Obama will be voted out of office so that those people will be able to get back into the labor market.

Re: Five Devastating Numbers That Show Obama's Incompetenc

The reason why jobs number reports are constantly in flux is because President Barack Obama’s “new election strategy for getting the unemployment rate down is to kill jobs,” talk radio host Rush Limbaugh said.

“I finally figured it out,” Limbaugh said Friday. “Barack Obama has decided that the only way to lower the unemployment rate is to kill off jobs.”

“The unemployment rate went down one tenth of a percent from 8.2 to 8.1 percent but the number of people leaving the labor force is at an all-time high. It’s over 88 million Americans not working.”

Limbaugh says that when looking at demographics, the unemployment rate is even worse for younger Americans, whose unemployment rate is closer to 15 to 20 percent.

Limbaugh says that the key to making sense out of these reports is to alter our way of thinking.

“Pushing people out of the workforce drives down the unemployment rate,” Limbaugh said. “When that happens, Obama says the recovery is slow but steady.

“As you see the unemployment rate fall, what you must understand is — do a 180 on your thinking — what you must understand is the job situation is worsening.”

“The labor force participation rate, that is the universe of all jobs available, is skyrocketing upward and that means fewer people are counted in the whole equation which means the unemployment rate is plummeting,” Limbaugh continued.

“Under Obama, when the unemployment rate falls, the jobs situation is getting worse,” Limbaugh said, because they then rely on government subsidies such as disability and food stamps.

Re: Five Devastating Numbers That Show Obama's Incompetenc

Election '12: The president seems to think bragging about killing Osama bin Laden will help get him re-elected. But the question is increasingly becoming why the president hesitated on such a no-brainer decision.

Jack Keane, the Army vice chief of staff from 1999 to 2003, told Mike Huckabee on Fox News over the weekend that the U.S. government knew exactly where Osama bin Laden was nearly a year before President Obama gave the order to send in the Navy SEALs to his compound in Pakistan.

The retired general told Huckabee, "We had the target in the summer (of) 2010, and it took until the following May to execute the mission."

Keane was surprised at the delay "because, you know, the longer you spend on something like that, the greater likelihood is that the target will be compromised because of your surveillance, and then that target will flee."

Keane added, "I know for a fact that we had it that summer, maybe even sooner than that."

So why didn't Obama act sooner?

"My sources tell me the White House was trying to verify that the target was actually there as opposed to just relying on circumstantial evidence," Keane said. "They actually wanted a photo ... and that without that there was a lot of delay and procrastination about it, because they wanted verification."

He said those few officials who knew that bin Laden had been located "wanted to get after" him "because they realized that the target could be compromised and it took so long to actually find it. And you sort of had the sense that this was it, it was real, and let's go get it."

Keane knew this information because he was "close to somebody who had knowledge and he trusted me and had confidence in me" not to reveal it.

What Keane says may not be true. Yet a president who knew where the man who gave the order for the 9/11 attacks was, but did not act, would be guilty of serious misconduct, a near-impeachable offense.

The gaffe-inator, Vice President Joe Biden, in March claimed that if the bin Laden raid failed "this guy would be a one-term president" — a comment exposing that even the White House knows this presidency is a failure. You mean all that "hope and change" in job creation and health care policy wouldn't make up for botching the bin Laden raid, Joe?

As shown in a Time magazine-revealed memo from Leon Panetta, the defense secretary who during the bin Laden raid was CIA director, the White House was setting up Adm. William McRaven, the Special Operations commander, as scapegoat if the mission failed.

"The timing, operational decision making and control are in Adm. McRaven's hands," Panetta's memo stated. "Any additional risks are to be brought back to the president for his consideration."

That wording would have made it easy to accuse McRaven of botching the mission by undertaking an "additional risk" the president supposedly didn't OK.

No wonder former and current Navy SEALs have accused Obama of politicizing the bin Laden killing.

As Montana Republican state Sen. Ryan Zinke, a 23-year veteran of the SEALs, told Britain's Daily Mail, it was a "no-brainer" to order bin Laden's elimination.

"I think every president would have done the same," Zinke pointed out.

George W. Bush, John McCain and Mitt Romney would all clearly have given the order — except much sooner.

The ghost of bin Laden may end up haunting not the GOP challenger, as many Democrats seem to believe, but procrastinator-in-chief Barack Obama.

Re: Five Devastating Numbers That Show Obama's Incompetenc

GAO: Recoverable Oil in Western States 'About Equal to Entire World's Proven Reserves'

By Erika Johnsen5/12/2012

On Thursday, the Government Accountability Office informed Congress that the Green River Formation, under a basically empty tract of mostly federally-owned land that covers the area where Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming come together, contains about as much recoverable oil as the rest of the planet's proven reserves, combined:

“The Green River Formation--an assemblage of over 1,000 feet of sedimentary rocks that lie beneath parts of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming--contains the world's largest deposits of oil shale,”Anu K. Mittal, the GAO’s director of natural resources and environment said in written testimony submitted to the House Science Subcommittee on Energy and Environment.

“USGS estimates that the Green River Formation contains about 3 trillion barrels of oil, and about half of this may be recoverable, depending on available technology and economic conditions,” Mittal testified. …

“As you can imagine having the technology to develop this vast energy resource will lead to a number of important socioeconomic benefits including the creation of jobs, increases in wealth and increases in tax and royalty payments for federal and state governments,” she said.

In her written testimony, Mittal noted that three-fourths of the Green River shale oil is under federal land.

“The federal government is in a unique **noallow** to influence the development of oil shale because nearly three-quarters of the oil shale within the Green River Formation lies beneath federal lands managed by the Department of the Interior’s (Interior) Bureau of Land Management (BLM),” she testified.

Environmentalists have a peculiar penchant for predicting imminent catastrophe, which makes sense: nobody's going to help them get their way if we've got time and resources to spare! Besides humanity's forthcoming doom via global warming or population boom, one of their favorites is a looming energy crisis that will come to pass when we shortly suck Mother Earth dry of all of her oil supplies. For decades, they've been heralding a shortage only a few years away, but the calamity has never come to pass. After all, they reason, oil a finite resource, and there's only so much to be had, especially as other nations like China and India are hitting the road and increasing global demand.

But these greenies' doomsday predictions are often focused on scary statistics that only tell half of the story. Their conjectures usually assume current levels and methods of efficiency sans new innovation, as well as our known reserves that are currently recoverable given present technology. But the fact is, not only are we likely to continue the trend of increasing efficiency and getting more out of the resources we have (and perhaps even bringing non-traditional sources into the mix, if the government would just let 'investments' happen naturally), but improving technology is constantly helping us to advance our access to oil as well as discover new deposits. The outlook really isn't all that bleak, folks, and shame on the Obama administration for constantly withholding permits that would bring us a greater market share in the global oil market, providing jobs and economic growth.

Erika Johnsen is a Web Editor for Townhall.com and Townhall Magazine. Follow her on Twitter @erikajohnsen.